Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Trebor Rowntree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image talk:     1
Image:  27
Mainspace       1235
Talk:   170
Template talk:  1
Template:       9
User talk:      198
User:   20
Wikipedia talk: 193
Wikipedia:      1328
avg edits per article   2.10
earliest        21:23, 14 April 2006
number of unique articles       1513
total   3182
2006/4  365     
2006/5  37      
2006/6  134     
2006/7  6       
2006/8  5       
2006/9  19      
2006/10         209     
2006/11         414     
2006/12         139     
2007/1  1113    
2007/2  741

Test run using Interiot's wannabe kate Tue Feb 20 01:03:23 2007 GMT

[edit] Ral315's comment

A checkuser has revealed that I was wrong. I shall eat my humble pie now, then :) Ral315 » 04:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. I believe this user is a sockpuppet of ForestH2. His account was created just an hour before the ForestH2 account, and Pinewood, another ForestH2 sockpuppet. His name is also eerily similar to the ForestH2 sockpuppets, who all share a similar naming scheme (Streamwater, Sugarpine, RainbowSwirl, etc.) His sockpuppeting scheme was officially discovered and confirmed on September 21, but it began unraveling a day or two earlier (Sugarpine's RFA went south, for example). Trebor Rowntree's account, which was mostly inactive from June to September, suddenly became active again on September 20. ForestH2 is not officially banned; however, he has numerous sockpuppets, and has continued to create and use sockpuppet accounts (I also believe that Carpet9 is a sockpuppet; it also follows certain naming and editing conventions that ForestH2 has continued to use). I do not object to Trebor Rowntree/ForestH2's continued editing in good faith; however, I cannot in good conscience support any ForestH2 sockpuppet for adminship until I'm reasonably certain that the sockpuppeting has stopped. Ral315 » 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    I checked the edit count and I discovered that in the first month after coming to Wikipedia, this user made 365 edits. 365 edits in your first month of being at Wikipedia? This seems suspicious. Also, the next month, it dropped down to less than 40 edits. In subsequent months, the edit count is erratic. This suggests sockpuppetry. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Wouldn't you rather wait for a checkuser to confirm this than oppose, solely based on a hunch? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    A checkuser is unlikely to return much more than an inconclusive result; since most of his accounts have not edited in months (IP data is kept for only a few weeks), and his IP has changed (presumably, since the original static IP he was using is blocked), the only check that might be successful is comparing Carpet9 and Trebor Rowntree. I'll see what I can do about getting a request made on that, but like I said, IP proof is not going to happen. I'd also call this more than a hunch; his accounts all have some common features (some of which I'm reluctant to make public in order to avoid ForestH2 learning from these). But as I've said, the naming is all quite similar, and so are the dates. Ral315 » 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Has this user (or any supposed "sock" account) been blocked for vandalism? If not, then there is no reason to suspect any wrongdoing. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 02:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Vandalism was not a concern with any of these accounts. The issue was that he was using multiple accounts for disruption, including the disruption of one of the sockpuppet's RFAs. And if this is the same user, which I am convinced it is, I cannot support the request for adminship. Ral315 » 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If this is the same person, even if their IP had changed, it is likely still the same ISP and city, which can be determined if we know their IP. —Dgiest c 02:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    I am still wanting to know why my name is in this conversation. Did I do something wrong? Carpet 02:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Regarding number of edits, Redux made nearly 300 edits in his first month here, made only 35 the next month, and one could say his number of edits/month since then have been erratic. I find this reasoning tenuous. Do you have any evidence relating to articles/areas of contribution? Also, I suggest that we move further comments regarding this to the talk page; this thread has the potential to become quite lengthy. Dar-Ape 03:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don't object to the number of edits; I think that there are reasonable explanations. I made a few edits in my first three months, then hit the ground running over a one or two week period. Areas of contribution have varied since ForestH2 was first caught, but it's worth noting that Carpet9, who I have a reasonable belief is a sockpuppet of ForestH2, edited the Wikipedia Signpost (an area that ForestH2's sockpuppets edited extensively), and has edited political-related articles (an area that Trebor Rowntree has edited in). My belief has been based on the damning evidence on his edits by date- this account was created an HOUR before ForestH2 and another sock were, and resumed editing in the 24 hours that the rest of his sockpuppets began to unravel. Ral315 » 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I took a look at [1] and [2]. There is a completely different pattern in terms of time of day between the two users. In several cases when there was overlap, both made contributions to different areas at the same time. Honestly, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that they are socks. As for edit counts dropping down, I'm glad nobody looked at my edit count during football season when I stood for an RFA. --BigDT 03:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I see the opposite. Hold on, let me write up the edits real quick. Ral315 » 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • April 14
    • 21:23-21:53 - Trebor
    • 22:41-22:42 - ForestH2
  • April 15
    • 1:02-3:54 - ForestH2
    • 16:14-19:55 - ForestH2
  • April 16
    • 0:39-1:38 - Trebor
    • 0:43-0:46 - ForestH2
      • ForestH2's edits during this time (only three minor edits) can easily be attributed to editing from two different browsers, which would allow editing from different accounts. This is the only time when edits overlap.
    • 2:16-2:55 - ForestH2
    • 14:35-16:11 - Trebor
      • 17 minute span between these two series of edits.
    • 16:28-17:29 - ForestH2
      • 2 minute span between these two series of edits.
    • 17:31-22:42 - Trebor
    • 23:11 - ForestH2
    • 23:35-23:36 - Trebor
      • 11 minute span between these two series of edits.
    • 23:47-23:49 - ForestH2
  • April 17
    • 6:32-15:57 - Trebor
    • 18:14-21:55 - Trebor
      • 12 minute span between these two series of edits.
    • 22:07-22:35 - ForestH2
    • 22:59 - Trebor
      • 13 minute span between these two series of edits.
    • 23:12-23:59 - ForestH2
  • April 18
    • 0:00-3:18 - ForestH2
    • 6:30-11:56 - Trebor
    • 13:34-14:02 - ForestH2
      • 3 minute span between these two series of edits.
    • 14:05-14:10 - Trebor
    • 19:32-21:26 - Trebor
    • 22:06-22:16 - ForestH2
      • 1 minute span between these two series of edits.
    • 22:17 - Trebor
      • 8 minute span between these two series of edits.
    • 22:25-23:54 - ForestH2
  • April 19
    • 0:10-2:30 - ForestH2
    • 6:12 - Trebor
    • 18:03-21:37 - Trebor
    • 22:12-23:05 - ForestH2
  • April 20
    • 0:14-3:28 - ForestH2
    • 14:08-14:09 - ForestH2
    • 17:55-21:24 - Trebor
    • 22:03-22:14 - ForestH2
      • 7 minute span between these two series of edits.
    • 22:21-22:39 - Trebor
The multiple cases here where the users changed editing after a short (1-15 minute) period signal to me a clear sockpuppet pattern. Ral315 » 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This does not address the above, but is another small consideration: I'm not sure how relevant this is, but ForestH2 has a habit of unnecessarily capitalizing words in his edit summaries ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], these are just a few of many) which Trebor Rowntree does not do. Dar-Ape 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Possible, but can't a sockpuppeteer change techniques in order to prevent getting caught? Captain panda In vino veritas 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Please see my comments on the main RfA page. As an addendum, I will repeat here something I observed there. The Checkuser case on ForestH2 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ForestH2 confirmed an IP of 72.134.40.171 which resolves to a RoadRunner account in San Marino, California (RoadRunner itself is headquartered in Virginia) per [9]. It should be easy enough for Checkuser to determine whether Trebor Rowntree is editing from the United States or the United Kingdom. Newyorkbrad 03:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Captain panda, where is your "proof of sockpuppetry" and why is it a reason to "strongly oppose" this user as a "threat to Wikipedia"? Are you sure this strong assumption of bad faith is necessary? Please enlighten me. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went over the contributions very carefully ... and I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for having a suspicion. For example, on September 20, Trebor came back from a long time away from Wikipedia ... incidentally, the same day that sock Sugarpine (talk · contribs) started an abortive RFA. I looked at the contributions of every known ForestH2 sock for that day and none of them overlap the time that Trebor was on. So I wouldn't get too upset with anyone for raising a red flag here. --BigDT 04:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, and that's what Ral315 did. Captain panda on the other hand talked about "proof of sockpuppetry" and called Trebor a "threat to Wikipedia". It's assumption of bad faith, if not a personal attack. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser result

Checkuser result. Newyorkbrad 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So in plain English, Carpet9 = ForestH2, Trebor Rowntree is unrelated to the two of them, right? --BigDT 04:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct. Ral315 » 04:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Whoah, you go to sleep and everything changes. Um, I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone (really ;) ) but I did spend a fair amount of time lurking at Wikipedia before beginning editing, if that explains anything. Trebor 07:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation for Vote

I was told to provide an explanation for my bad faith oppose vote on this RfA. Here it is. I was given a very persuasive argument by Ral315 prior to the checkuser. I also did some checking of my own and discoved that a suspected sockpuppet of ForestH2, Carpet9, made an unsummarized edit to the RfA. I took this as very suspicious and in addition to the proof at the time, I determined that this user was a sockpuppet. I was wrong. I checked the checkuser and it turns out they are unrelated accounts. I apologize for my bad faith statements and my incorrect voting. With an allegation of sockpuppetry, I was very concerned about such a user becoming an admin. There were some odd coincidences involved, though. Sorry again about that. I will need to be more careful in making statements like that in the future. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted; no hard feelings :) Trebor 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said to Ral315 yesterday, there were certainly some odd coincidences here, though coincidences is all they were. But something told me right away that the allegation didn't ring true. I should have been more emphatic in saying so at the time; re-reading my comments on the RfA and the RfCU two days later, I'm embarrassed by some of the weasel words I used to hedge my bets in case my instincts and conclusions turned out to be wrong. Fortunately, the checkuser finding was pretty definitive, which I guess is to be expected when the subjects are editing from different continents. Newyorkbrad 12:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)