User:Olivierd/Olivierd/Benio76/Zelig33 "sockpuppetry" case

Mediator response

(...)

Another thing. If anyone's a sock puppet, it will save everyone a lot of pain by choosing one account to edit with. I can request checkuser if need be, and if I have to do that it will make your point look so much worse to me. Thanks, ST47Talk 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What are the conditions for running this checkuser test ? Alex Pankratov 22:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some would call it a paper dragon, unless you have direct suspicion, if so, why don't you email me. Otherwise, I just wanted to make sure that I had a "I warned you" quote if there was any foul play. ST47Talk 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is any suspicion of Benio76, Zelig33 or myself having created a sock puppet, I think that it can only be of having created a Straw man sock puppet. "They will often make poor arguments which their "opponents" can then easily refute." But unfortunately, I think we are facing real people... David Olivier 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A doubt

Hello, Schmucky. I have a feeling that Zelig33 might be a sock of Benio76. Same languages on their userpage, similar writing style and attitude. Do you know what the process would be to find out for sure? If you think they're not the same person and it's not worth checking, please also feel free to let me know.--Ramdrake 20:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Noting that I've seen this. WP:RFCU is a serious step which I'd rather not take without proof, as there are stringent requirements on cases. Zelig does indeed look like a single purpose account, and the times of editing look similar. Do you want to RFCU? The page lists WP:AN/I as an alternative, and there may be a way to determine it without doing that, possibly through writing style - typos, grammatical errors, and the like - all of which would be excellent for RFCU. ST47Talk 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OlivierD

• Olivierd (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Zelig33 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Benio76 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: C, D, E

User:Olivierd, User:Zelig33, and User:Benio76 are involved in a dispute on Foie gras which has gone to medcab. They have similar writing styles, may have used sockpuppetry in a straw poll I tried to do, all say they hail from Italy or France, have similar babelboxes, edit at the same times(the same time range, not actually 5 minute apart edits), several 3RR near-violations and edit warring: [1] [2] [3]. 2 of the accounts are only used for this article and were created recently. I would like to know if those accounts are from the same IP, and have them blocked for disruptive sockpuppetry. ST47Talk 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

ST47 is supposed to be our mediator at the foie gras informal mediation. Yes, there is an ongoing controversy, and both sides have engaged in edit warring; to attribute it to us or to speak of disruption is hardly what one can expect from a neutral mediator. ST47's statements about 3RR violations are heavily one-sided too. To accuse us of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism" (code C) is ludicrous - and codes D and E are too, since the only reason we might be sockpuppets is that we all disagree with the pro-foie gras side. The other information given by ST47 is vague and unsustainable, such as the assertions about writing styles - while the pro-foie gras side is certainly acting entirely of a same accord, one user even calling two others to help in in that straw poll! (here and here).

ST47, who took up this case, expresses that he doesn't care for the arguments - after one side showed that foie gras is not known to have been produced by the Egyptians, he answers that "This is not an argument about foie gras, its history, or its production, but about the article." He doesn't care for the arguments; it's easier to simply take sides. The foie gras case is not an easy one; it would have been understandable for ST47 to desist, but not for him to fall in to the pressure of the "majority" just because that is the more comfortable option.

David Olivier 13:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to comment very briefly on Olivierd's statement that I called two others to help in the straw poll. These two users were at that time already named as parties to the mediation, and my very wording on their talk page was only to point out to them that the mediation had taken a new turn, and that they might want to express their position if they so wished. The reason I left these users a note is that, contrary to all other users names in this mediation, these were the only two left who hadn't been active on the mediation page since ST47 tried to restart the mediation. Please let me know if I broke any rules, but this was only done to ensure all named parties had a chance to express their opinion and wasn't trying to influence the "vote" (as the mediator, ST47, said at that time this was a listing of arguments for or against each of the positions he perceived).--Ramdrake 14:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you were trying to influence the vote. And I wouldn't be so petty as to hold it against you if those on your side, and now ST47, didn't themselves have such a track record of petty slurs. When every edit on our side is described as a disruption while all your manoeuvers, tricks and disinformation count as normal practice, it is necessary sometimes to note a few facts. David Olivier 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your mediation of the foie gras article

The wording of your checkuser request, and that request itself following one-sided discussion with one of the parties ([4], [5]), appear to be in violation of the What mediators are not guideline:

2. Mediators are not Private Investigators. Mediators do not "work for you," nor will they work to build a case against someone or research the facts in an article. (...)

3. (...) Mediators work with all parties as a neutral third party; they cannot and will not counsel or give advice to either party involved in the dispute.

4. Mediators are not Advocates. Mediators will not take sides or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person. (...)

In my opinion, you have handled the foie gras mediation poorly, through the above violations and on the counts that I have stated on the checkuser case page. That mediation case was a difficult one, and I am not implying that you cannot be a good mediator. I do feel it important to note those shortcomings.

David Olivier 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with both of your diffs. The first one was a response to a question asked to me, the RFCU had cause and I was contacted outside of the mediation with suspicions and was simply asked for advice. The second one was also a friendly suggestion to one of the sides, just like I suggested that you all try to come up with helpful suggestions with my edit this morning to the mediation page. I don't see how these situations can be resolved without more interaction beyond "look, here is a page, feel free to nuke each other on it, I'll sit over here and watch", especially when one side is suspicious of foul play. Until those concerns are alleviated I do not see how this can be resolved. ST47Talk 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The first diff seems quite acceptable, except that you suggested that user Apankrat email you behind the scenes regarding his suspicions of sockpuppetry. (That diff was a double edit, I am not questioning the second part of it.) Any user can request checkuser, it is not up to the mediator to "work to build a case against someone". It was not your role to "counsel or give advice to either party involved in the dispute". That you clearly did; you gave advice to one party on how to mount its sockpuppetry case against the other; and you are found doing it even more openly in the second diff (second diff, not second part of first diff): "there may be a way to determine it (...), possibly through writing style - typos, grammatical errors, and the like - all of which would be excellent for RFCU." Then you went as far as requesting the checkuser yourself, acting on behalf of one party. In that request, you use heavy language, that is not only biased but offensive - calling our edits "ongoing, serious pattern vandalism" and "disruptive" - if that is not "taking sides and promoting one person's point of view and requests over those of others", I don't know what would be!

What you say about the difficulty of resolving the situation is no doubt true. I recognize mediation is a difficult task in general, and that the foie gras article is a particularly difficult case. I am not competent to advise on what you should have done, except this: to do your work correctly, you would have had to pay much more attention to the arguments. You would then have realized that any resolution of the conflict implies obtaining of Trevyn, Ramdrake and the others that they accept to act in a less blatantly POV manner.

And also, if you had read the arguments, you would have realized how different the writing styles of Benio76, Zelig33 and myself actually are, and how implausible it is for there to be sockpuppets among us. Instead, I believe you panicked, and in substance allowed yourself to become the sockpuppet of one side. That is not a good outcome for a mediation.

David Olivier 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I got bored after the first 50 KB of bickering, and lost my faith in humanity after the first 100KB. It is obvious both sides don't need my help, if all you plan to do is what you've been doing on the article for weeks. I am going to read some stuff then I will be back. ST47Talk 11:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi ST47, I just took notice of your request for checkuser concerning me and the editors of my party in the controversy about foie gras. Well, it was plainly incorrect to do this without even saying it in the mediation page, i.e. in hiding. I see now that the other party contacted you, that they alerted each others when it was needed to charge against us, that you have had contacts all the time. Personally, I never dared to contact other editors who contributed to foie gras (not even to alert those who did not come to the Mediation Cabal, to ask them to come), fearing that it would have been incorrect; I never even thought of writing to you indipendently of the Mediation Cabal page, because it was obvious to me that all the discussion - and making questions, and raising suspects eventually - was supposed to take place there, and every attempt to contact you would have been dishonest. I see now that I've been too naive.

You say that you got bored: you should have said it before. Instead, you stayed silent for a while, then you choose to reduce our request to have precise and verifiable statements in the article (concerning historical facts and scientific definitions) to a question of sockpuppetry. From the very beginning of this mediation, the other party has repeatedly tried to remove attention from the poorness of their sources and the speciousnees of their arguments by making speculations about the identity of their opposants, before accusing everybody to come from PETA, now accusing us to be sockpuppets. And you got bored, you followed their suggestions and your priority now is to help them to see if I'm a sockpuppet or not. You don't care if I contributed to disveal an historical fraud, if I showed the unreliability of a book which was listed as an historical source despite its author was clearly biased and incompetent. You didn't even express your opinion about this, about the necessity to remove that stupid book from the sources, to edit more carefully, to give not speculation for truth. Your priority is just to see if I'm a sockpuppet, because you got bored.

Well, I don't now how many mediations you take, maybe this case is specifically hard or annoying compared to the others, I don't know; but I think that if there were serious problems in our case, you should have said it openly. I worked seriously to demask deliberate disinformation, I wrote a lot, yes, but I always thanked you for your attention: you stayed silent and I thought that you were thinking. Now I see that you lost your neutrality, now I read that "you got bored": it's me, really, who have lost my faith in humanity.

Benio76 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This user has been confirmed as a disruptive sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Olivierd. ST47Talk 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, ST47, I think you will find out that it is not enough to assert something for it to become true. David Olivier 18:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

ST47, you are accusing me, among other things, of "several 3RR near-violations and edit warring" [6]. Could you please substantiate your claim ? Please provide evidence supporting this accusation, or please publicly apologize for false accusations. I don't think you can any longer be a legitimate mediator after this. Anyway if you want to act as a mediator, you cannot just ask editors "to compromise" without looking somewhat into the issues involved, into why for instance some editors refuse to accept that claims not grounded on credible sources be inserted into the article. You have to look at the arguments themselves, not just ask people to compromise. If that is more efforts than you want to put into this, fine, it is you right, then just say it and don't pretend you want to be a mediator. To me contributing to a Wikipedia article is not about making editors compromise, it is about stating facts that are grounded on credible sources.

Zelig33 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello ST47 just wanted to let you know that, after speaking with my colleagues, we decided best to continue the conversation on the talk page of the article (which has been severely archived already) rather than going back to the mediation page. I guess you can close that one right now, and say it was successful, but in an unforeseen kind of way. Please feel free to jot down any remarks or such you feel are appropriate. Thank you again for all your help.--Ramdrake 12:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note • Moved discussion to the Talk page. Also, please provide provide some more information pertaining to code letter E. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll just remove it, the diffs cover my concerns there. ST47Talk 11:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed Olivierd = Benio76, Zelig33 is Likely. Essjay (Talk) 09:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. ST47Talk 11:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am neither Zelig33 nor Benio76. The lack of serious enquiry by Essjay before stating as a fact a damaging assertion that he has not taken the trouble to ascertain is appalling. David Olivier 13:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Essjay, on what ground do you claim that I am "likely" to be Olivierd and Benio76 ? Please elaborate on the checks you have made before making these public accusation. Zelig33 08:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

10:50, 19 January 2007 MacGyverMagic (Talk | contribs) blocked "Benio76 (contribs)" (account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/OlivierD)

Erronous checkuser outcome against Olivierd / Benio76 / Zelig33

Today (09:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)), following a checkuser complaint by ST47, mediator in the ongoing foie gras controversy, administrator Essjay has declared that I (Olivierd) am the same person as Benio76, and probably the same as Zelig33.

I happen to be neither Zelig33 nor Benio76, and I also know for a fact that they too are two different real-life people. We are three different and independent contributors, and I have neither dictated to them their contributions nor have they dictated mine.

If Essjay had chosen to do his work correctly, it would have been easy for him to determine those facts up to a high degree of certainty. He could have done it even without contacting any of the parties; and even more clearly by contacting them, which he has not done.

I am writing to Essjay to give him the relevant facts. I am expecting a reversal of his decision and an apology.

David Olivier 14:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The three of you all use the same internet connection, right? And have the same opinion on Foie Gras? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you do not have checkuser status, and whatever you may say about that is anyone's guess. What you do have is access to our contributions, and that should be enough to demonstrate what I have said. David Olivier 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What Hipocrite meant was that if you all use the same connection, and edit the same articles, the checkuser will turn up true. Try to stay civil, please. yandman 14:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have remained civil; perhaps you could also comment on the lack of civility and respect for ourselves and for the integrity of Wikipedia on the part of an administrator who declares true what he could have ascertained to be false had he simply bothered to contact the parties. David Olivier 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[10]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to hear this explanation as well, because I've run my own check the results seem pretty darn conclusive. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, just wanted to report that the user above (Olivierd) is now issuing what seems to be direct threats of continual disruption of an article and its mediation page as per this diff. [11]. Not sure what this should be classified under, but I figured it was worth reporting.--Ramdrake 19:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets seems to think that it's irrelevant if you three are actually the same person or not: "Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." —Trevyn 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we just trust the checkusers on this one. When they say it's conclusive, then its conclusive. When they say they're the same person, then they're the same person. Checkusers don't fool around with results. They don't say something unless they're sure. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was any doubt whatsoever (as there was with Zelig33 in this very request, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Olivierd, possibly because of a shared IP - I don't exactly know), Essjay would not have {{confirmed}} it, but rather used the spectrum of {{likely}}, {{possible}}, {{unlikely}}, {{inconclusive}} etc. Daniel.Bryant 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Erronous checkuser decision

See WP:AN/I#Erronous_checkuser_outcome_against_Olivierd_.2F_Benio76_.2F_Zelig33. I will email you shortly. David Olivier 14:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer expected

I sent you an email before yesterday (i.e. Jan 19, 18:09 UTC), relative to your statement that Benio76, Zelig33 and I were the same person. I would like to know if you plan to answer.

David Olivier 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't; if I answered all the angry emails I get from sockpuppets, I'd need a secretary. I've given my report, and that's the end of it. Essjay (Talk) 21:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet, and your calling me one is insulting. I have sent you a detailed message demonstrating that I am not a sockpuppet. If you do not even accept to read it, you are not doing your work correctly, nor are you showing any respect for your fellow Wikipedians or for justice generally.

I ask you again to read my message and to answer me. I do not intend to accept this injustice.

David Olivier 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to accept or reject whatever you like, it doesn't bother me in the least. I've given my report, I've listened to the same litany of excuses every sockpuppet from Wik to Lightbringer to Willy on Wheels has used, and I don't believe it any more from you than I did from any of them. Find someone else to harass. Essjay (Talk) 19:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not given you excuses, I have given you evidence. I am not "harrassing" you; you have declared me a sockpuppeteer, which I happen not to be. I am asking you to examine the evidence and to revert your decision.

To declare that I am "welcome to accept or reject whatever [I] like, it doesn't bother [you] in the least" amounts to saying "I have might, so I am right". You may, or may not, have the might; that we will see. In any case, it doesn't make you right, and it does say something about your fitness for the work you are supposed to be doing.

David Olivier 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

20:29, 24 January 2007 Pschemp (Talk | contribs) blocked "Olivierd (contribs)" (account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (abusive sockpuppet per checkuser case)

20:34, 24 January 2007 Pschemp (Talk | contribs) blocked "Zelig33 (contribs)" (account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of Oliverd)

Benio76

I have recently received a email from User:Benio76, that in which he claims he was unfairly blocked. He has stated that the supposed sock puppets of himself are from an shared IP and not of his making. He says that he has tryed to contact you be he has received no response. Please respond on my talk page. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 10:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Benio has stated that ha lives in an apartment with which is a shared IP address. Who was the administrator that delt mostly with this incident? Did you ever receive Benios messages? Benios has also said he would like to take this to arbcom or the medition commitee. If Benio is truly innocent what do you think should happen? Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 23:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Benio

He/she did receive a response. I said I'd pass on their message to the user who performed the checkuser investigation. I haven't heard back from them. If you consider unblocking him, first have a look at the disputed article. Both accounts share the same POV. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I received a complaint about the block, and said I'd pass it on to User:Essjay. Later I received a message complaining about the fact I hadn't gotten back to them yet. If Essjay isn't responding, I will look into it again tomorrow. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Olivierd

Quick question: Did any of the users involved in this request use other IPs to log in - other than the one they share? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

23:41, 2 February 2007 Mel Etitis (Talk | contribs) unblocked Benio76 (contribs) (sock-puupet claim reassessed (after discussion with blocking admin and other admins))

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Olivierd

Did any of the users involved in this request use other IPs to log in - other than the one they share? User Benio is contesting the decision to block him per checkuser as he states his Ip is shared between him and his roommate. Although its intresting to see they have the same editing habits. Anyway your input into discussion would be highly valued. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 04:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not permitted to reveal that information. The "it was my roommate" excuse, however, is one of the classics; it's been used by nearly every sockpuppeteer out there. Essjay (Talk) 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Essjay I should of known you cant say but are you completely sure their one and only? Beio has contacted via email trying to prove his innocence. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that the technical evidence supports the conclusion that they are the same user; checkuser is unfortunately not a precision instrument, so I'm not able to check DNA samples or anything. ;) The way that cases get to RFCU is because someone notices that two or more users are behaving and contributing in a similar manner; they come to RFCU to have us check and see if the technical evidence supports this, which is all we do: Perform a checkuser investigation and report the state of the technical evidence.

Experience says that roommates generally have diverse interests, different writing styles, and other personality traits that differentiate them; when two users who have been acting exactly alike, especially editing the very same articles in the very same way, then they are one person, not two. As I've said before, many sockpuppeteers claim to be two different people, but it all goes back to what brought the issue up to begin with: They were exhibiting behavior that led other users to believe they are the same person, and the technical evidence supports that conclusion.

Another important point here: Even if two suspected sockpuppets *are* two different users, if they are acting like sockpuppets (i.e., if they are meatpuppets), then they are to be treated as sockpuppets, per the ruling of the Arbitration Committee. "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." [12] Users are not permitted to circumvent Wikipedia policies by recruiting proxies to act on thier behalf.

I'm not surprised that he's emailed you; he's emailed several dozen other people, and he's spammed me to the point that I've put him on filter in my email. The more important point is, however, that I didn't block any of them, so I'm not the person to be talking to: The blocking admin is the one you need to discuss the matter with. If you're concerned about the evidence, I'd suggest asking the users who filed the RFCU, as they are the ones who noticed the main evidence: Editing pattern. My point has been, and remains, that my only job here is to check the technical evidence and report on it, and that report was, is, and remains that the technical evidence is consistent with these users being the same person. Essjay (Talk) 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)